- Google LLC v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedAdverse judgmentPTAB · May 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00961 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed claims 1–3, entering judgment against Patent Owner on those claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Owner to file a response to the Petition. Paper 8, 11. On March 30, 2025, the parties entered a stipulation to modify the due dates for a response to the Petition, reply, and sur-reply. Paper 11. Patent Owner’s response was due May 16, 2025, but no response was filed. On May 7, 2025, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) disclaiming all of the claims at issue in this proceeding, namely, claims 1–3 of the ’109 Patent. Ex. 2002; see also Paper 14, 2 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a)). On May 16, 2025, Patent Owner filed a Request For Adverse Judgment stating that Patent Owner “requests judgment against itself under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2), with respect to claims 1-3” of the ’109 Patent. Paper 14, 2. Such a “disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Pursuant to our rules, “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” which includes “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). See Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“there is no claim remaining for trial . . . when, as here, all of the challenged claims have been cancelled”). For the reasons given above, we grant Patent Owner’s Request for Adverse Judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Adverse Judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1–3 of the ’109 Patent.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,945,109 - Google LLC v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedAdverse judgmentPTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00956 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed claims 1–12, entering judgment against Patent Owner on those claims.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“§ 1.321(a) disclaiming all of the claims at issue in this proceeding, namely, claims 1–12 of the ’574 Patent. Ex. 2002; see also Paper 14, 2 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a)). On May 16, 2025, Patent Owner filed a Request For Adverse Judgment stating that Patent Owner “requests judgment against itself under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2), with respect to claims 1-12” of the ’574 patent. Paper 14, 2. Such a “disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Pursuant to our rules, “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” which includes “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). See Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“there is no claim remaining for trial . . . when, as here, all of the challenged claims have been cancelled”). For the reasons given above, we grant Patent Owner’s Request for Adverse Judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Adverse Judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1–12 of the ’574 patent.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,355,574 - Stmicroelectronics, Inc. v. Optical Licensing, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2021-01593 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment, entered a final written decision, cancelled oral argument, and terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Here, Patent Owner has expressly requested entry of adverse judgment. Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,791,898 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al. v. Led Tech Development, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Oct 20, 2014 · IPR2014-00590 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Adverse judgment
Adverse judgment was entered against Patent Owner on claim 31, and its request to cancel that claim was granted.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“6,095,661 on September 3, 2014. Paper 23. Pursuant to our authorization, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Adverse Judgment on October 17, 2014, requesting cancellation of claim 31, the only claim on which trial was instituted. Paper 28. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claim 31; FURTHER ORDERED that this constitutes a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a); and FURTHER ORDERED that the request to cancel claim 31 is granted.” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 6,095,661 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al. v. Led Tech Development, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 29, 2014 · IPR2013-00610 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against the Patent Owner and granted cancellation of instituted claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, 17-26, 29, 30, 40, 41, and 48.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“29, 30, 40, 41, and 48 of U.S. Patent No. 6,095,661 on March 7, 2014. Paper 10. In response to a request by Patent Owner during the initial conference for this case on April 10, 2014, we authorized Patent Owner to file a motion to request cancellation of the claims on which trial was instituted, or request adverse judgment by no later than April 17, 2014. Paper 12. We further authorized Petitioners to file, no later than April 24, 2014, any opposition to Patent Owner’s motion. Id. On April 16, 2014, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Adverse Judgment, requesting cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, 17-26, 29, 30, 40, 41, and 48, all of the claims on which trial was instituted. Paper 13. Petitioners did not file an opposition to Patent Owner’s motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, 17-26, 29, 30, 40, 41, and 48;” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,095,661 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al. v. Led Tech Development, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Apr 29, 2014 · IPR2013-00611 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner and granted cancellation of instituted claims 1-6, 11-16, and 24-39.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“24-39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,488,390 B1 on March 7, 2014. Paper 8. In response to a request by Patent Owner during the initial conference for this case on April 10, 2014, we authorized Patent Owner to file a motion to request cancellation of the claims on which trial was instituted, or request for adverse judgment by no later than April 17, 2014. Paper 10. We further authorized Petitioners to file, no later than April 24, 2014, any opposition to the Patent Owner’s motion. Id. On April 16, 2014, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Adverse Judgment, requesting cancellation of claims 1-6, 11-16, and 24-39, all of the claims on which trial was instituted. Paper 11. Petitioners did not file an opposition to Patent Owner’s motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1-6, 11-16, and 24-39;” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,488,390
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.